LGBT Liberation

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This is something I published on my blog (http://stormingheavenblog.wordpress.com/), based on a statement I originally wrote for an organization I used to belong to.

LGBT Liberation

The Stonewall Rebellion began on 28 June 1969 when New York City police raided the Stonewall Inn, a bar in the Greenwich Village neighborhood that catered to gay and some transgender customers. Unlike previous raids, this time the patrons fought back. The Rebellion grew to involve 2,000 protesters doing battle with 400 police officers over several nights. The chant of “Gay Power!” became a rallying cry for oppressed sexual minorities worldwide.

Some of the patrons of the Stonewall Inn were Black and/or Hispanic, placing the Rebellion firmly in the broader context of the social uprisings of Blacks and Hispanics against oppression in 1960s America.

Some activist groups formed in the immediate aftermath of the Stonewall Rebellion, like the Gay Liberation Front groups in both the US and Britain, were also anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist, arguing that the liberation of LGBT people, and the sexual liberation of all people, could only happen as part of a broader liberation struggle.

The idea of LGBT liberation has slowly been lost as marches commemorating the Stonewall Rebellion began dropping “Liberation” and “Freedom” from their names, replacing them with the less radical “Pride.” Today, so many of these events are sponsored by corporations, and LGBT identities have been commodified and absorbed into the ideology of the bourgeois social order.

We must demand full equality for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people in all spheres of life. Further, rights and privileges must ultimately be detached from marital status, so that family relationships are defined by the people in them, not the state or the church. People’s rights should not be determined by their willingness or ability to participate in state or church sanctioned arrangements.

We must recognize that LGBT liberation requires more than just reform, it also requires a revolutionary change in society. Full sexual and gender liberation for all people can only happen if existing social institutions are abolished and the archaic values they represent are swept aside with them.

Religious bodies have exerted their influence to oppose civil laws promoting LGBT equality, while promoting homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia. This is an example of the archaic values which must be swept aside.

We must demand an end to all homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic religious bodies attempting to impose their beliefs on society as a whole. We must stand against theocracy and for secularism. Religion must not be imposed on anyone nor used to justify the dehumanization of LGBT people.

Revolutionary change will affect our understanding of family, relationships, sexuality, and gender, as those all reflect the nature of the society they exist within. Under capitalism, relationships and sexuality are commodities. Marriage and family reflect existing property relations. Under socialism, they will reflect new social relations.

We must condemn all physical and legalistic attacks against LGBT people, and we must stand in solidarity with the victims of homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic violence. We must demand an end to all violence and intimidation against LGBT people, including mistreatment by police and other authorities.

We must demand an end to biphobia from some gays and lesbians, and we must demand an end to transphobia from some gays, lesbians, and certain feminist tendencies.

We must demand that all people regardless of age have free access to information about their bodies and sexual health, unfettered by political and religious doctrines that transform natural human bodily functions into matters of “sin” or disease.

We must demand that the medical and psychiatric establishments stop enforcing sex/gender apartheid through the creation of false diseases and the denial of medical care. We must oppose so-called “reparative therapies” that propose to “cure” sexual and gender diversity, as they are merely another form of violence against LGBT people.

Further, the social pressures placed on people to conform to narrowly defined gender roles must be combated and eliminated, to advance the liberation of all people.

Each human being has an inherent right to define their own sexuality, whether it’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual, asexual, or whatever label they choose to apply to themselves, and we believe each human being has an inherent right to define their gender and to make decisions about their bodies based on those definitions.

Neither the state nor the church should have the authority to deny these rights.

Further, these rights are non-negotiable. No concessions should be made to bigots, no matter who they are or how they cloak their prejudice.

Onward to full liberation for all sexual orientations and genders!

[The Feral Underclass]

We must demand full equality for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people in all spheres of life.

This view assumes that there is external power by which our equality has to mediated. Who are we demanding this equality from? Why does this thing have the power to determine we get equality in the first place?


We must demand an end to all homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic religious bodies attempting to impose their beliefs on society as a whole.

Again, to "demand" something implies that there is an overarching authority who can grant us our equality. This not only legitimises the existence of this authority, it simultaneously concedes our power to create our own liberation.

We shouldn't be dependent on anything or anyone else to create liberation for us. It is our task exclusively and must involve us creating our own expressions of power that runs counter to that framed within heteronormativity.


Onward to full liberation for all sexual orientations and genders!

I'm not sure we can truly achieve liberation if our demands are framed within the context of heteronormative society. Equality is a "bourgeois" concept and it doesn't accurately describe what is required to create meaningful liberation.

Here is an article I wrote that has some cross over with all this: The Cynicism of Gay Marriage (http://www.anarchistcommunist.org/5/post/2013/07/the-cynicism-of-gay-marriage.html)

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm working on an expanded version, so I welcome the critique. This was originally written as an organizational statement, and this is what I was approved for release. This version just removes the words that referred specifically to the organization.


Again, to "demand" something implies that there is an overarching authority who can grant us our equality. This not only legitimises the existence of this authority, it simultaneously concedes our power to create our own liberation.
Equality and liberation are two different things. One is speaking to formal protection under the present system, the other requires that system to be abolished.

When making the demand now, it's a demand of the bourgeois state and its organs. I'm loathe to engage with the state, but I also think it's ultraleft (and, yes, I do see that listed as your tendency) to say "wait until after the revolution" when bourgeois civil rights laws may help some of us now. I've personally experienced benefits from civil rights laws in my state that explicitly protect trans people, even though those benefits are incapable of liberating me.

It could be described as a minimum program vs. a maximum program, and it could have been structured better to make that more clear.


We shouldn't be dependent on anything or anyone else to create liberation for us. It is our task exclusively and must involve us creating our own expressions of power that runs counter to that framed within heteronormativity.
I don't disagree.


I'm not sure we can truly achieve liberation if our demands are framed within the context of heteronormative society.
Which is why we need to be part of a larger class struggle to abolish the existing order, and along with it, its institutions and values. I don't think heteronormativity (or cisnormativity) can be seriously challenged without it.

As the text says, "Revolutionary change will affect our understanding of family, relationships, sexuality, and gender, as those all reflect the nature of the society they exist within."

Part of the reason I no longer belong to the organization it was originally written for is because one member of the leadership supported neither equality or liberation, and another thought anything past reformism was too radical and even utopian to think "the social pressures placed on people to conform to narrowly defined gender roles" should be "combated and eliminated" as part of a revolution. And that from proclaimed revolutionary communists.

[Red_Banner]

The thing I don't get with the LGBT community in my area is they operate like an underground organization.

They like to be secerative with the gay bars, like little to nothing on the outside to indicate that it is one.

Half of the LGBTs around here for no reason that I know of are really hostile.

Yet you go 70 miles in a couple more directions and the LGBT community is open.

[The Feral Underclass]

Equality and liberation are two different things.

Which is a distinction I made. The point of that distinction was to address the incoherency in the tactic you are suggesting should be used. I am putting forth the notion that fighting for equality from a bourgeois state is actually counter-intuitive, if not actively disadvantageous to achieving liberation.

I say that because the equality you are imagining is equality defined and implemented as liberation by heteronormative power and therefore creates, and in fact has created, conditions in which queer people imagine their liberation exists.

In your article you point out quite rightly that marches have become less and less radical. Why do you imagine that is? It's because we demanded concessions from the state and the state conceded and now people imagine that we have achieved our objectives, or at least have created progress towards them. You are suggesting to continue with that tactic; a tactic that doesn't work...

If we are going to propose an anti-capitalist queer liberationist agenda then it has to exist outside the confines of these demands, otherwise we are never going to win the argument.


One is speaking to formal protection under the present system, the other requires that system to be abolished.

When making the demand now, it's a demand of the bourgeois state and its organs.

Yes, I understand the tactic. My point is that doing that implies that the bourgeois state exists to provide us with equality. If you don't believe it is, why then are we making demands of it? It cannot be legitimate and illegitimate simultaneously.


I'm loathe to engage with the state, but I also think it's ultraleft (and, yes, I do see that listed as your tendency) to say "wait until after the revolution" when bourgeois civil rights laws may help some of us now.

Well, first of all I didn't say that. Secondly, how can you simultaneously argue that the bourgeois state isn't legitimate while asking for it to provide you with civil rights. When you present that argument to the world, what is the justification for this contradiction?


I've personally experienced benefits from civil rights laws in my state that explicitly protect trans people, even though those benefits are incapable of liberating me.

But what is the point you're making here? That the state is benevolent or what?


It could be described as a minimum program vs. a maximum program, and it could have been structured better to make that more clear.

But what your proposing doesn't work.


I don't disagree.

That's not true. You have argued in this thread that the state can act as a partner to improve our lives.


Which is why we need to be part of a larger class struggle to abolish the existing order, and along with it, its institutions and values. I don't think heteronormativity (or cisnormativity) can be seriously challenged without it.

As the text says, "Revolutionary change will affect our understanding of family, relationships, sexuality, and gender, as those all reflect the nature of the society they exist within."

That doesn't really address my concern. As I said at the beginning of this post, the tactics you are imagining confuse the issues and create conditions that are not conducive to then proposing radicalisation.

It's all fine and well to say that post-capitalism is where we will find liberation, but unless you define liberation outside the context of the bourgeois state how do you imagine you can do that?

The point I am making is that we have to start building those counter-powers now and they have to have a coherent strategy that moves beyond conceding our power to the state. Your alternative only strengthens the state's position as a mediator of rights.

[The Feral Underclass]

The thing I don't get with the LGBT community in my area is they operate like an underground organization.

They like to be secerative with the gay bars, like little to nothing on the outside to indicate that it is one.

Half of the LGBTs around here for no reason that I know of are really hostile.

Yet you go 70 miles in a couple more directions and the LGBT community is open.

They are probably a group of people who have experienced really shit heterosixist prejudice and discrimination and have gone underground as a means to escape it.

Heteronormative/cisnormative society is pretty shitty and straight people suck so often that it surprises me that more queer people aren't hostile, to be frank.

[Red_Banner]

They are probably a group of people who have experienced really shit heterosixist prejudice and discrimination and have gone underground as a means to escape it.

Heteronormative/cisnormative society is pretty shitty and straight people suck so often that it surprises me that more queer people aren't hostile, to be frank.


The thing is though, you don't have to go so far to find an open LGBT community.

Like in downtown Binghamton NY, there is a gay bar with the LGBT flag and a furry flag out front.

Then in Jim Thorpe PA, a tourist town, there are openly gay shop owners.
Which I find to be a little odd since alot of other places in Carbon County PA from what I've heard are loaded with far right, I've even heard of KKK being there.

[The Feral Underclass]

The thing is though, you don't have to go so far to find an open LGBT community.

Like in downtown Binghamton NY, there is a gay bar with the LGBT flag and a furry flag out front.

Then in Jim Thorpe PA, a tourist town, there are openly gay shop owners.
Which I find to be a little odd since alot of other places in Carbon County PA from what I've heard are loaded with far right, I've even heard of KKK being there.

It's not really our place to judge how queer people decide to interact with the society that oppresses them.

[Red_Banner]

It's not really our place to judge how queer people decide to interact with the society that oppresses them.

I'm a gender queer, can I judge myself?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm a gender queer, can I judge myself?

You can do whatever you want, but you're not entitled to judge how other people respond. If you are gender queer, surely you understand why these people maybe do the things they do..

[Sea]

It's not really our place to judge how queer people decide to interact with the society that oppresses them.Nice try, but the average straight person is part of the oppressed, not the oppressor.

[The Feral Underclass]

Nice try, but the average straight person is part of the oppressed, not the oppressor.

Not when it comes to sexuality they aren't.

[Sea]

Not when it comes to sexuality they aren't.In terms of their sexuality, they are neutral. Heterosexuality is not inherently oppressive, and to imply that it is represents a most vulgar and immature analysis.

Therefore, there is till no excuse to act like a dick towards straight people.

[Misericordia]

Not when it comes to sexuality they aren't.
I've raped exactly zero gay people and I have prevented exactly zero gay people from having sex with anybody else. But yeah play the "im a bigger victim than other proletarians! :(" card.

[Hermes]

I've raped exactly zero gay people and I have prevented exactly zero gay people from having sex with anybody else. But yeah play the "im a bigger victim than other proletarians! :(" card.

kind of doubt that TAT is attempting to say that you as an individual have ever personally oppressed non-hetero people, or that he's trying to compete in the oppression olympics

it seems far more likely that he's talking about heteronormative society (and those who benefit from it) in the same way that we talk about white society, etc. recognizing that queer people are systemically oppressed, in ways that intersect and complicate class oppression, isn't really a terrible argument.

could be misreading him entirely and he's just a jackass, but again, i kinda doubt it

[The Feral Underclass]

In terms of their sexuality, they are neutral. Heterosexuality is not inherently oppressive, and to imply that it is represents a most vulgar and immature analysis.

It's always interesting when straight people tell me what I should feel oppressed by. My response: Go fuck yourself.


Therefore, there is till no excuse to act like a dick towards straight people.

Your posts in this thread are a prime example of why I should act like a dick towards straight people.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I am putting forth the notion that fighting for equality from a bourgeois state is actually counter-intuitive, if not actively disadvantageous to achieving liberation.
The statement said we should demand equality in every sphere of life. That doesn't mean only the bourgeois state, but everywhere queer people are, including revolutionary movements that don't take our liberation seriously.

Nowhere does the statement say we should "fight for equality", meaning put our energies into reformism, but believe me, I had to fight against that attitude trying to get this statement approved by the organization I belonged to, and this year I couldn't even get it approved, which is why I left.

Do you know how much pushback I got for "family relationships are defined by the people in them, not the state or the church" or "social pressures placed on people to conform to narrowly defined gender roles must be combated and eliminated, to advance the liberation of all people"? I even got pushback for mentioning the Gay Liberation Front in a historical context.


Secondly, how can you simultaneously argue that the bourgeois state isn't legitimate while asking for it to provide you with civil rights.
I'm disabled. I receive disability benefits. By doing so, does that mean I've recognized the legitimacy of the bourgeois state?

Similarly, if a civil rights law can give me protection when it comes to housing, using a public restroom, seeking medical attention, or dealing with my benefits, then why should I not take advantage of it? (I wasn't a part of any gay rights organization supporting it, nor did I write to politicians in support of it.)

A friend of mine should be able to be recognized as the partner of the woman she loves by hospital staff, for example, but if the only way that can happen is if they enter into a state-sanctioned arrangement, am I supposed to condemn them if they do?

The path to liberation is called revolution, but clearly I live in a world where there are shades of grey and you do not.

[Sea]

It's always interesting when straight people tell me what I should feel oppressed by. My response: Go fuck yourself.Well, my boyfriend is gay, so I think that gives me some entitlement to speak on this issue. If you want a straight person's opinion, you should perhaps go ask one.
Your posts in this thread are a prime example of why I should act like a dick towards straight people.How so? Right now you just seem like a hostile person. There's no need to turn your personal faults into a big debate. I'd be happy to discuss the nuances of liberation with you, but I ask that you keep the bad feelings out of it.
The statement said we should demand equality in every sphere of life. That doesn't mean only the bourgeois state, but everywhere queer people are, including revolutionary movements that don't take our liberation seriously.The whole possibilism thing does sure make reformists come out of the woodwork though.

[Quail]

I've raped exactly zero gay people and I have prevented exactly zero gay people from having sex with anybody else. But yeah play the "im a bigger victim than other proletarians! :(" card.
This is a ridiculous statement. LGBT people aren't "bigger victims that other proletarians," they're objectively disadvantaged in our society compared to straight people. Among other things, the very high rates of self harm, mental health problems and drug use is an obvious indicator of that,

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, my boyfriend is gay, so I think that gives me some entitlement to speak on this issue. If you want a straight person's opinion, you should perhaps go ask one.

If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck it normally is a duck.

Okay, so this is what I was responding to:


In terms of their sexuality, they are neutral. Heterosexuality is not inherently oppressive, and to imply that it is represents a most vulgar and immature analysis.

Can you identify anywhere in anything I have said in this thread, directly or indirectly, that confirms that I think heterosexuality is "inherently" oppressive? Please show me where I have said this...

And there is this:


Therefore, there is till no excuse to act like a dick towards straight people.

All I said was that straight people aren't oppressed because of their sexuality...


How so? Right now you just seem like a hostile person.

I am a hostile person towards people who don't take the time to understand my points and then act like they're uncovering some great truth.

Hermes was perfectly capable of understanding me. In future either try harder or ask for clarification before you start acting like you know what you're talking about.


I'd be happy to discuss the nuances of liberation with you, but I ask that you keep the bad feelings out of it.

If you want to discuss the nuances of liberation with me you should start by understanding my position, rather than misunderstanding it and trying to attribute opinions to me.

This is a two-way process. If you want me to engage with you seriously, then be serious. If you post mickey-mouse bullshit, you should expect the appropriate response.

[The Feral Underclass]

The statement said we should demand equality in every sphere of life. That doesn't mean only the bourgeois state, but everywhere queer people are, including revolutionary movements that don't take our liberation seriously.

I am struggling to understand how you are addressing my argument by simply saying your statement calls for multiple tactics. I am not bringing into question the variety of your tactics, I am bringing into question the legitimacy of seeing the bourgeois state as a tactic at all.


Nowhere does the statement say we should "fight for equality"

No, it says "demand equality", which is even worse.


Do you know how much pushback I got for "family relationships are defined by the people in them, not the state or the church" or "social pressures placed on people to conform to narrowly defined gender roles must be combated and eliminated, to advance the liberation of all people"? I even got pushback for mentioning the Gay Liberation Front in a historical context.

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


I'm disabled. I receive disability benefits. By doing so, does that mean I've recognized the legitimacy of the bourgeois state?

Receiving disability benefits is not comparable to asking the state for rights and equality.


Similarly, if a civil rights law can give me protection when it comes to housing, using a public restroom, seeking medical attention, or dealing with my benefits, then why should I not take advantage of it?

I have given an explanation why already in my other posts.

To repeat: you should not take advantage of it because it concedes our power to act for ourselves to the state, therefore bolstering the legitimisation for its existence, pacifying resistance, de-radicalising queer people and confusing the coherency of our argument.

If we are trying to construct a new kind of reality then we should do that. If there are problems with public restrooms or housing issues then resolve those issues by taking action to resolve them that empowers you and your community to act for yourselves.

If you want to create a counter-power, then you have to build one, not rely on the state to resolve these issues for you.


friend of mine should be able to be recognized as the partner of the woman she loves by hospital staff, for example, but if the only way that can happen is if they enter into a state-sanctioned arrangement, am I supposed to condemn them if they do?

This isn't about condemning people, it's about recognising how you actually build the alternative world you say you want to create.


The path to liberation is called revolution, but clearly I live in a world where there are shades of grey and you do not.

My rejection of reformist tactics and transitional demands is based on observing their outcomes and failures. I'm not taking a binary position here, I'm simply rejecting one thing based on experience and observation.

Seeking solutions from the state is damaging to our objectives: It is as simple as that.

[Sea]

If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck it normally is a duck.So, in other words, you're judging me based on your own shallow stereotypes of how straight people act. This really shows the subjectivity that you put into your arguments. "If only there was some way that I didn't have to admit the problems in my argument.... I know! I'll accuse Sea of heterosexuality in the first degree!"

Okay, so this is what I was responding to:



Can you identify anywhere in anything I have said in this thread, directly or indirectly, that confirms that I think heterosexuality is "inherently" oppressive? Please show me where I have said this...

And there is this:



All I said was that straight people aren't oppressed because of their sexuality...Well, you took up a post from someone who claimed their local queer community was acting poorly to straights. The claim itself is dubious and reeks of stereotyping. But instead of pointing out how it's wrong to judge a whole group of people based on encounters with a few members of said group who happen to be assholes, you devolve into a tirade about how the LGBT community in Red_Banner's locale not only, on your assumption, does act poorly to straights, but that they ought to as well! In doing so you identify heterosexuals with "the society that oppresses them". And no, that's not all you said. You kept on digging the hole you're in by claiming that you, personally, are entitled to act like a dick towards straight people:
Your posts in this thread are a prime example of why I should act like a dick towards straight people.Any reasonable person would have pointed out how the LGBT community in a given area is itself very diverse, and filled with all kinds of people, some of whom may very well be jaded from the prejudices of the society that we live in, but that this anger is by no means universal. Instead you suppose that the straights in Red_Banners's area must be especially nasty, and given that "straight people suck so often", you expose how, in your mind, the drive for equal rights ought by necessity to be saturated with hostility and anger:

They are probably a group of people who have experienced really shit heterosixist prejudice and discrimination and have gone underground as a means to escape it.

Heteronormative/cisnormative society is pretty shitty and straight people suck so often that it surprises me that more queer people aren't hostile, to be frank.

[Art Vandelay]

It's always interesting when straight people tell me what I should feel oppressed by. My response: Go fuck yourself.

And while the sentiment is valid, if you seriously approach your real life political work with that attitude, you aren't going to be doing anyone, or our class, any good.

Your posts in this thread are a prime example of why I should act like a dick towards straight people.

No TAT, you shouldn't be a dick to anyone and certainly not to a group of people as heterogeneous as the entirety of the straight community, solely based on their sexuality. In fact if anything, you'd think that being a gay man, you'd be less likely to do so, having been on the receiving end of discrimination. I'm actually surprised by some of the people who liked your post, to be honest. The highly polemical style in which you post, is not conducive to productive discussion and given that you have 18,000+ posts on this site, you'd think that would be something you'd be interested in. Intellectualize it however you want, as I've seen you do, but as you said 'if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, its usually a duck.'

[The Feral Underclass]

CyBcHUe4WeQ

[Sea]

Also I should point out that the demand for equal rights does not suppose some alienated group that goes around granting rights to people:
This view assumes that there is external power by which our equality has to mediated. Who are we demanding this equality from? Why does this thing have the power to determine we get equality in the first place?This is a misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise) of Danielle Ni Dhige's argument.

What it does suppose, is that there is a force in society that restricts these rights. Danielle Ni Dhige's argument does not call for a silly group that grants rights, it calls for the abolition of the social forces that take these rights away. That abolition is what all communists and anarchists support and fight for.

I'm not sure if TAT is simply trolling in their "critique" of the OP, or if this dialectical inversion in TAT's mind of what Danielle Ni Dhige is calling for is simply a symptom of the vulgarity of their analysis.

[Red_Banner]

So, in other words, you're judging me based on your own shallow stereotypes of how straight people act. This really shows the subjectivity that you put into your arguments. "If only there was some way that I didn't have to admit the problems in my argument.... I know! I'll accuse Sea of heterosexuality in the first degree!"
Well, you took up a post from someone who claimed their local queer community was acting poorly to straights. The claim itself is dubious and reeks of stereotyping. But instead of pointing out how it's wrong to judge a whole group of people based on encounters with a few members of said group who happen to be assholes, you devolve into a tirade about how the LGBT community in Red_Banner's locale not only, on your assumption, does act poorly to straights, but that they ought to as well! In doing so you identify heterosexuals with "the society that oppresses them". And no, that's not all you said. You kept on digging the hole you're in by claiming that you, personally, are entitled to act like a dick towards straight people:Any reasonable person would have pointed out how the LGBT community in a given area is itself very diverse, and filled with all kinds of people, some of whom may very well be jaded from the prejudices of the society that we live in, but that this anger is by no means universal. Instead you suppose that the straights in Red_Banners's area must be especially nasty, and given that "straight people suck so often", you expose how, in your mind, the drive for equal rights ought by necessity to be saturated with hostility and anger:

I was basically making an observation not really a scientific study on this. I am interested to hear what other people, straight, gay, etc. from my region have experienced regarding these matters,

[synthesis]

And while the sentiment is valid, if you seriously approach your real life political work with that attitude, you aren't going to be doing anyone, or our class, any good.

Honestly - and I generally agree with what Sea is saying here - I think this is a reflection of the "asking for equality" versus "liberation" dichotomy that TAT has been talking about in this thread. Communist politics don't require you to be "nice" to a vague mass of people who may or may not support your cause.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh, some substance, finally...Sort of.


Also I should point out that the demand for equal rights does not suppose some alienated group that goes around granting rights to people:This is a misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise) of Danielle Ni Dhige's argument.

I am trying to decipher the meaning of this, but I am struggling. Are you suggesting that the state doesn't exist or grants and codifies rights? That seems like a preposterous suggestion, so I could be wrong...


What it does suppose, is that there is a force in society that restricts these rights.

You think rights just exist as a thing in the world?


Danielle Ni Dhige's argument does not call for a silly group that grants rights, it calls for the abolition of the social forces that take these rights away. That abolition is what all communists and anarchists support and fight for.

Rights don't exist unless they are constructed. They are granted and codified by the state. You therefore cannot restrict "rights" unless they have been granted...? The OP seems to agree with that position.


I'm not sure if TAT is simply trolling in their "critique" of the OP

If I had misunderstood the nature of the OP's post, they would have pointed that out to me. There is no misunderstanding, there is no trolling, there is just one opinion vs another opinion.

[Art Vandelay]

Honestly - and I generally agree with what Sea is saying here - I think this is a reflection of the "asking for equality" versus "liberation" dichotomy that TAT has been talking about in this thread. Communist politics don't require you to be "nice" to a vague mass of people who may or may not support your cause.

Again, as I said, I think the sentiment is entirely valid. That being said when it comes to the forum, I think there is value in having some tact. I'm certainly guilty of lacking it at times myself, as I'm sure we all are, but I was more trying to point out the irony of TAT commenting on discussion being a two way street, given the way he generally engages in discussion. More importantly, I was trying to make a broader point about the necessity of tact in real life political organizing. Again this is a two way street, it not only means shutting the fuck up and listening to the concerns of oppressed minorities, but also if we want to be serious growing a movement capable of posing a serious threat to capital, also not belittling or being disrespectful to people who aren't aware of the full scope of the pervasiveness of capital. Again I'm guilty of this as well, although I'd like to think I'm getting somewhat better in this regard, but it reminds me of when Tim Cornellis called me out for debating with the former user 'theredanarchist23' in an overly aggressive and disrespectful manner. His point was valid then and I think it applies to TAT as well, namely that if that's how one engages with the average worker, then they'll never get anywhere. And since joining an organization and engaging in my own, which I admit is limited, political work, this has only become more and more clear to me. I'm not talking about some 'vague mass of people' who may or may not agree with you, I'm specifically referring to the people on this board in the one instance, as well as making a broader point about radicals orientation to the working class. You certainly can't raise a person up, by calling them down and you certainly won't turn those who identify as straight, into valuable allies for lgbt emancipation, by being a 'dick' to them.

[The Feral Underclass]

And once again a thread about LGBT liberation has been turned into a thread about how queer people have to be nice to straight people.

[Sea]

Oh, some substance, finally...Sort of.



I am trying to decipher the meaning of this, but I am struggling. Are you suggesting that the state doesn't exist or grants and codifies rights? That seems like a preposterous suggestion, so I could be wrong...



You think rights just exist as a thing in the world?



Rights don't exist unless they are constructed. They are granted and codified by the state. You therefore cannot restrict "rights" unless they have been granted...? The OP seems to agree with that position.



If I had misunderstood the nature of the OP's post, they would have pointed that out to me. There is no misunderstanding, there is no trolling, there is just one opinion vs another opinion.No, you're misunderstanding the usage of the term "rights". Equality can exist damn well without a state.

We must demand an end to all homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic religious bodies attempting to impose their beliefs on society as a whole.This condition likewise can be fully satisfied without a bourgeois state. But you reply:

Again, to "demand" something implies that there is an overarching authority who can grant us our equality. This not only legitimises the existence of this authority, it simultaneously concedes our power to create our own liberation.
How does a demanding an the abolition of an authority legitimatize its existence? It merely recognizes the authority's role as a repressive force and addresses it thusly. We cannot bury our heads in the sand, pretending that the forces of oppression do not exist, just because we're afraid to run the risk of "legitimatizing" them.


Danielle Ni Dhige's post assumes, at the most, the existence of a vanguard of the working class. Even this is dubious. Even the assumption that, in order to combat repression, someone or some group (or some class...) must actively combat it, does not equate to sympathy for the bourgeois state, or any alienated force. The organization of the proletariat suffices.

[Art Vandelay]

And once again a thread about LGBT liberation has been turned into a thread about how queer people have to be nice to straight people.

That's a pretty flippant way of dismissing the criticisms I've raised, but I certainly wasn't trying to hijack the discussion, merely trying to make a point about the productive facilitation of discourse between radicals and the working class. Regardless I'll butt out now and the conversation can continue in any manner you or others wish.

[The Feral Underclass]

No, you're misunderstanding the usage of the term "rights".

Well until you have demonstrated this, I'm just going to say: No I'm not.


Equality can exist damn well without a state.

I'm not really disputing that, but Danielle Ni Dhige and I are talking specifically about being granted rights and statuses i.e. equality from the state.

And let's be clear about what equality is: a liberal construct created to mediate class and social oppressions in order to stabilise western capitalist economies.

Equality as a concept doesn't address the fundamental nature of why division exists, it merely attempts to resolve the conflicts that arise from it by providing a group otherwise under assault the ability to be protected from those assaults. It doesn't actually address the cause of those assaults as its primary objective.

Equality presupposes the existence of some kind of status and rights or opportunities that I should seek, and therefore require protection. What status, what rights, what opportunities? From whom am I seeking these things? And from whom do they need protecting?

It also doesn't accurately describe what a post-class and post-heteronormative society should look like, it merely proposes that there is more that can be done within class and heteronormative society to mediate our relationships to dominant and privileged groups.

There are no statuses, there are no rights, there are no opportunities: There is only the creation of a communist society void of heteronormative privilege and oppression.


This condition likewise can be fully satisfied without a bourgeois state. But you reply:

Why make demands of it then?


How does a demanding an the abolition of an authority legitimatize its existence?

The answer to that question is in the quote you responded to.


It merely recognizes the authority's role as a repressive force and addresses it thusly.

Then to whom is this demand being made?


We cannot bury our heads in the sand, pretending that the forces of oppression do not exist, just because we're afraid to run the risk of "legitimatizing" them.

This is a very bizarre interpretation of what I have been arguing. I'm not sure how rejecting reformism and transitional demands is equatable to burying one's head in the sand.

It also has nothing to do with fear, but what is the correct approach to defeating heteronormativity. Providing that is your objective.


Danielle Ni Dhige's post assumes, at the most, the existence of a vanguard of the working class. Even this is dubious. Even the assumption that, in order to combat repression, someone or some group (or some class...) must actively combat it, does not equate to sympathy for the bourgeois state, or any alienated force. The organization of the proletariat suffices.

Your premise is false. But in any case, what Danielle Ni Dhige and I are talking about are transitional demands granted from the state and whether that is a legitimate tactic. You seem to be confused about that.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's a pretty flippant way of dismissing the criticisms I've raised

Flippant, but accurate.

And your criticisms are just liberal whining nonsense about feelings and politeness. I have no interest in them other than to make fun of them. Trying to make the link between my being polite and revolutionary change is just idiotic.

[Art Vandelay]

Flippant, but accurate.

And your criticisms are just liberal whining nonsense about feelings and politeness. I have no interest in them other than to make fun of them. Trying to make the link between my being polite and revolutionary change is just idiotic.

Hardly the case, I was explaining why I thought tact was valuable in not only the radical movement but also on this discussion forum. The only thing idiotic here, is the statement that one should be a 'dick' to a heterogeneous group of people, due to their sexual identity.

[The Feral Underclass]

the statement that one should be a 'dick' to a heterogeneous group of people, due to their sexual identity.

A statement I never made.

Edit: Though I can understand why you might think that.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

To repeat: you should not take advantage of it....
If it keeps me from being homeless, I'll take advantage of it. If you have a viable solution that would help me if I were faced with that situation right now, what would it be?


If you want to create a counter-power, then you have to build one, not rely on the state to resolve these issues for you.
I absolutely agree, we need to construct a counter-power with a revolutionary consciousness. Perhaps we should discuss ways of doing that instead of you trying to fit me up as a reformist.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And your criticisms are just liberal whining nonsense about feelings and politeness.
Having a respectful debate? How bourgeois.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm not really disputing that, but Danielle Ni Dhige and I are talking specifically about being granted rights and statuses i.e. equality from the state.
Well, you seem to be discussing that. It's not a perfect statement by any means, and in fact does reflect some compromises, but I don't think it's advocating reformism.


There is only the creation of a communist society void of heteronormative privilege and oppression.
That's the only way to create LGBT liberation. I absolutely agree. But in the struggle for that society, within any revolutionary movements, we must counter heteronormative privilege within those movements. We must struggle within those movements for our own demands. That's what "all spheres of life" is meant to encompass.

I gave you some history behind the statement, and why I'm no longer a member of that organization. For one of my fellow members, a supposed revolutionary communist, even liberal reformism was too radical. He opposed same sex marriage not because it enforced heteronormativity, but because he supported heteronormativity and follows the Catholic Church's teachings on women and LGBT people. Another in the organization argued that LGBT liberation is utopian and not a relevant matter for a revolutionary movement.

Demanding equality in all spheres of life? Absolutely, especially in our supposedly revolutionary organizations and movements.

[The Feral Underclass]

If it keeps me from being homeless, I'll take advantage of it. If you have a viable solution that would help me if I were faced with that situation right now, what would it be?

It's not up to me to create viable solutions for you, it's up to you to do that, along with your 'comrades' or community.

Militants have to get out of this bourgeois notion that things they are powerless to act immediately, in their current situations and areas. We have to resolve these issues ourselves. That's what building a counter-power is.

I cannot begin to imagine how difficult or inconvenient your health issues are in your daily life and I understand that I come from a position of privilege being able bodied, and therefore I'm in no position to make pronouncements about what you should and should not do to make your life easy in ways that I take for granted, but I do think there is an argument that we must be having in how we, as communists, irrespective of our identities and statuses, relate to these daily struggles.


I absolutely agree, we need to construct a counter-power with a revolutionary consciousness. Perhaps we should discuss ways of doing that instead of you trying to fit me up as a reformist.

I am not accusing you of anything, I am merely challenging your ideas.


Well, you seem to be discussing that.

But with you...


It's not a perfect statement by any means, and in fact does reflect some compromises, but I don't think it's advocating reformism.

Transitional demands, such as asking for equal rights in housing or marriage, are reformist by definition, since you are seeking the state to make reforms. If you think reformism is unjustified then it is necessary to change your perspective on this tactic.


That's the only way to create LGBT liberation. I absolutely agree. But in the struggle for that society, within any revolutionary movements, we must counter heteronormative privilege within those movements. We must struggle within those movements for our own demands. That's what "all spheres of life" is meant to encompass.

Right, and I am trying to re-frame this discussion away from demands v concessions towards a more militant orientation that simply de-establishes heteronormative privilege by militantly combating it and forcing change.

We don't need to demand things, we just need to do it.


Demanding equality in all spheres of life? Absolutely, especially in our supposedly revolutionary organizations and movements.

From whom are these demands being made? I've asked this question several times. To demand something implies there is something from which the demands can be realised. In that instance it implies there is a force in which the conditions for our liberation can be granted to us.

We cannot actually establish liberation in that way.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's not up to me to create viable solutions for you, it's up to you to do that, along with your 'comrades' or community.
No, it's not up to you to create them, but if you're going to criticize me, you need to be able to suggest alternatives. Do you have experience creating alternatives in your community? If so, you must have some ideas to share for discussion.


Right, and I am trying to re-frame this discussion away from demands v concessions towards a more militant orientation that simply de-establishes heteronormative privilege by militantly combating it and forcing change.So do you have any ideas for how to do so? That might move the discussion forward. What does de-establishing heteronormative privilege by militantly combating it and forcing change look like in practical terms?

[Le Socialiste]

Flippant, but accurate.

And your criticisms are just liberal whining nonsense about feelings and politeness. I have no interest in them other than to make fun of them. Trying to make the link between my being polite and revolutionary change is just idiotic.

Enough, TAT. Whether I agree with your position(s) or not, your posting behavior is unacceptable, and is unbecoming of you - a longstanding member of this board. If you're not going to engage other posters in a serious, committed manner (you are a CU after all), then don't respond. Because posts like this one aren't conducive to an open and honest debate, or helpful in engaging workable solutions. Trolling, like the post I've quoted above, isn't meant to be tolerated - and since you've successfully racked up a number of warnings on this front without reforming your behavior in the past, I'm going to have to issue you an infraction.

[The Feral Underclass]

Enough, TAT. Whether I agree with your position(s) or not, your posting behavior is unacceptable, and is unbecoming of you - a longstanding member of this board. If you're not going to engage other posters in a serious, committed manner (you are a CU after all), then don't respond. Because posts like this one aren't conducive to an open and honest debate, or helpful in engaging workable solutions. Trolling, like the post I've quoted above, isn't meant to be tolerated - and since you've successfully racked up a number of warnings on this front without reforming your behavior in the past, I'm going to have to issue you an infraction.

I'm sorry, what is it exactly you think I should be engaging with? The latent homophobia, the goading or the misrepresentation of my opinions? None of you, except for the OP, are remotely serious people and my responses to you are consistent with that. If you have some deluded self-belief that you have contributed to this discussion on LGBT liberation then that only reinforces the self-involved attitude of straight men. The only "workable solution" you people will accept is if I agree with you. Well I don't, and I'm not going to and no matter how many times you whine and infract me, it isn't going to change that.

But yeah, infract the gay guy for daring to suggest that an LGBT thread has been hijacked by straight men whining about how I have to be nice to them. That's a really serious way to engage and not in any way proving my point...But here's a trick: perhaps you could consider the possibility that maybe it's not me that's the problem?

[The Feral Underclass]

No, it's not up to you to create them, but if you're going to criticize me

Please can you stop personalising this discussion? I contacted you personally and I have said in this thread that I'm not attacking you, so you have no reason to think that. I am attacking your ideas, not you as a person.


you need to be able to suggest alternatives.

I don't agree that I "need" to suggest alternatives just because I make criticisms. If you are only going to judge the credibility of my arguments if I provide you with a blue print, then that's not really a productive way to engage with what I'm saying.


Do you have experience creating alternatives in your community? If so, you must have some ideas to share for discussion.

Unfortunately I don't have any experience in a group like the one I am suggesting, not for want of trying. There exists no radical queer community in the city I live in. I have had experience as an individual, and also experience within groups that are not militant, which left me seriously demoralised.


So do you have any ideas for how to do so?

Yes, I have lots of ideas.

The general theme, however, is to create, what I would describe as defensive organisations that respond to issues in an offensive way. Take school bullying for example, if there are issues with groups of straight people attacking young gay teenagers then you organise to go into the school and deal with it. In areas where homophobic violence is prevalent, you organise street protection. If the state removes people's housing, you organise to occupy the spaces and fight to maintain them. If there are cultural or social spaces where gay people aren't permitted to go (bars, churches, nightclubs) then you go to these spaces and be.

The conflict that arises from these situations is the point of combat that we have to engage in to achieve liberation. When I go into a "straight" bar and kiss a man and get confronted because of it, that confrontation is the front line of combat. That is the point of entry into the war against heteronormativity and we have to be dealing with that head on.


What does de-establishing heteronormative privilege by militantly combating it and forcing change look like in practical terms?

It essentially means not taking any shit and doing what we need to do to survive.

[Art Vandelay]

But yeah, infract the gay guy for daring to suggest that an LGBT thread has been hijacked by straight men whining about how I have to be nice to them. That's a really serious way to engage and not in any way proving my point.

In all honesty man, don't interpret that post, in that fashion; cause quite frankly as two members, who have been on both ends of moderator/administrative action, I think we can both say, that mods who make such posts, are doing so, in an attempt (whether guided, or ultimately, misguided), to facilitate productive discussion on this board. Whether or not the reactions of certain members of this board are ultimately 'reactionary' and, or, 'discriminatory' in your eyes, don't let it make you get pissed off and end up getting yourself banned once again. Regardless of however much I vehemently disagree with your politics, or even have directly exchanged with you before, obviously you're someone who has a played a valuable role in this forums development. This issues isn't about 'le socialiste' wanting to 'infract the gay guy.' Hell, I'm pretty sure you've even accused me of similar things (ie: directly or indirectly stifling the ability of lgbt people to address their concerns on this forum), despite the fact that I'm bisexual. In fact, you even attempting to frame LS comment, in that light, is shitty of you in my opinion; not only cause I think were both aware of his intentions when making said statement, but also because of the fact that I don't think you were even attempting to make the claim he was sexist (and if you were, then you have a whole lot more argumentation to put forth.

[The Feral Underclass]

In all honesty man, don't interpret that post, in that fashion; cause quite frankly as two members, who have been on both ends of moderator/administrative action, I think we can both say, that mods who make such posts, are doing so, in an attempt (whether guided, or ultimately, misguided), to facilitate productive discussion on this board. Whether or not the reactions of certain members of this board are ultimately 'reactionary' and, or, 'discriminatory' in your eyes, don't let it make you get pissed off and end up getting yourself banned once again. Regardless of however much I vehemently disagree with your politics, or even have directly exchanged with you before, obviously you're someone who has a played a valuable role in this forums development. This issues isn't about 'le socialiste' wanting to 'infract the gay guy.' Hell, I'm pretty sure you've even accused me of similar things (ie: directly or indirectly stifling the ability of lgbt people to address their concerns on this forum), despite the fact that I'm bisexual. In fact, you even attempting to frame LS comment, in that light, is shitty of you in my opinion; not only cause I think were both aware of his intentions when making said statement, but also because of the fact that I don't think you were even attempting to make the claim he was sexist (and if you were, then you have a whole lot more argumentation to put forth.

And where we go again. Whether you're bisexual or not, you're acting like a dick towards me because I am criticising heterosexist attitudes.

This is the chronology of what has occurred:

I make a statement. You accuse that statement of meaning something it doesn't. You climb up onto some heterosexist high-horse and attack me for it, trying to draw an absurd link between my frustration with straight people and a detriment to political organising. I point out that a thread about LGBT liberation has been hijacked by issues of politeness towards straight people. You clamber further up that heterosexist high-horse because I dare to not give your views the proper attention they richly deserve, and so rudely dismiss that criticism as "flippant", and when I respond to your a) mischaracterisation of my position and b) your rude, privilege orientated dismissal of my views, I get infracted...You people are ridiculous.

If you want to avoid a gay guy feeling like he's being ganged up on -- don't gang up on the gay guy.

[#FF0000]

Half of the LGBTs around here for no reason that I know of are really hostile.

For what it's worth, I think I know the region you're talking about, and if that's the case, then everyone is really hostile for no reason -- not just the LGBT folks.


words

What actually happened:

you said a dumb thing about being allowed to be a dick to straight people, people said it was a dumb thing, you got sad and got on a weird high horse while furiously trying to backpedal after telling someone that they shouldn't take government assistance for their disability bloopdoopblorp

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Please can you stop personalising this discussion? I contacted you personally and I have said in this thread that I'm not attacking you, so you have no reason to think that. I am attacking your ideas, not you as a person.
I could have phrased it better to say my ideas. Sorry about that.


I don't agree that I "need" to suggest alternatives just because I make criticisms. If you are only going to judge the credibility of my arguments if I provide you with a blue print, then that's not really a productive way to engage with what I'm saying.
If you say "doing x is wrong," but can't suggest something better than x, that's also not productive. I'm not looking for a blueprint by any means.


Unfortunately I don't have any experience in a group like the one I am suggesting, not for want of trying. There exists no radical queer community in the city I live in.
I haven't come across one where I live, either. So, clearly, what we first need is a base of radical queers and then the self-organization of such.


The general theme, however, is to create, what I would describe as defensive organisations that respond to issues in an offensive way. Take school bullying for example, if there are issues with groups of straight people attacking young gay teenagers then you organise to go into the school and deal with it. In areas where homophobic violence is prevalent, you organise street protection. If the state removes people's housing, you organise to occupy the spaces and fight to maintain them. If there are cultural or social spaces where gay people aren't permitted to go (bars, churches, nightclubs) then you go to these spaces and be.
I have no disagreement with any of that. But, again, it presupposes the existence of organized radical queers to do such things. Right now, radical queers are a small section of the LGBT community, and not really organized. That's something that needs to change. So, how do you think that can be changed?

[The Feral Underclass]

you said a dumb thing

Which essentially translates into you thinking my expressions of frustration at heterosexist attitudes is stupid. And why? Because I express myself in a way that seeks to assault the very heterosexist sensibilities I'm frustrated with in the first place.

Instead of understanding that frustration, you people try and make me conform my behaviour to a way that makes you feel better and is more conducive to those heterosexist sensibilities. You're not interested in the intrinsic point I'm making, only in making sure you're not upset. Well it's not my responsibility as a gay man to make you feel good about yourself, it's your responsibility to fucking listen!

"Oh, I'm straight but I'm so progressive. How dare this gay person include me in their frustration when I have gay friends and stand on gay rights marches." Actually, this has fuck all to do with you and Populi, it has to do with the bullshit I deal with on a daily basis for having sex differently. But yeah, let's focus on making sure straight people aren't offended.

Further to all this shite, you people think that my belligerence is just a personality flaw, but that's only a reflection of the liberalised, touchy-feely nature of so-called radical movements nowadays and the pathological need for people to be nice to each other all the time. In actual fact my belligerence is a political reaction towards my oppression, manifested aptly in this thread.


about being allowed to be a dick to straight people

That's not what I said though, was it? What I said was: "Your posts in this thread are a prime example of why I should act like a dick towards straight people."

That wasn't me saying I am allowed to be a dick to straight people; it's not even me saying I am going to be a dick or that I want to be. In fact, it doesn't state or even imply that being a dick to straight people was something that was worthwhile or necessary or desirable.

And now here I am, trapped in some Kafquesque nightmare, having to explain basic fucking English to you.


people said it was a dumb thing

I'm sorry to break this to you, but straight people need to shut the fuck up and listen. They need to listen and they need to change their behaviour. There is no alternative to that; there's no compromise here. Straight people need to deal with their privilege or we're going to have a problem. Period.

Irrespective of whether we have altered the material foundations of our society, heterosexism isn't going to be de-established until straight people and their allies realise they are part of the problem.


bloopdoopblorp

Yeah, well done.

And I'm the one who gets infracted for trolling.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you say "doing x is wrong," but can't suggest something better than x, that's also not productive. I'm not looking for a blueprint by any means.

Why isn't the criticism productive? "Debate is progress". We need to get out of this messianic attitude towards political discourse.


I haven't come across one where I live, either. So, clearly, what we first need is a base of radical queers and then the self-organization of such.

Yes, obviously.


I have no disagreement with any of that. But, again, it presupposes the existence of organized radical queers to do such things. Right now, radical queers are a small section of the LGBT community, and not really organized. That's something that needs to change. So, how do you think that can be changed?

With great difficulty, determination and engagement with other radical queers.

[#FF0000]

edit: actually no point in further derailing the thread

[The Feral Underclass]

edit: actually no point in further derailing the thread

Why don't you try actually seriously engaging with what I am saying instead of trying to get one up on me, then you wouldn't be derailing the thread?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why isn't the criticism productive? "Debate is progress". We need to get out of this messianic attitude towards political discourse.
I don't even know what you mean by "messianic attitude," but how can criticism be productive if you're unable to offer an alternative to what you're criticizing?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't even know what you mean by "messianic attitude," but how can criticism be productive if you're unable to offer an alternative to what you're criticizing?

If you don't see the intrinsic value in debate then I guess you wouldn't see criticism as productive. But criticisms have the potential to invigorate ideas, to create progress. Criticism is a necessary part of discourse.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If you don't see the intrinsic value in debate then I guess you wouldn't see criticism as productive. But criticisms have the potential to invigorate ideas, to create progress. Criticism is a necessary part of discourse.
Of course I see value in debate, else I wouldn't be here, and criticism does have that potential.